Friday, March 06, 2020

Statism-- Irrational excess and threats



I ran across a statist who assumed he was being reasonable about governing "better". He admitted that change is probably necessary but he advocated "rational reform based on moderation and compromise".

There's no such thing.

If you advocate political government you are advocating neither moderation nor compromise. You are advocating excess and making threats. You are demanding a one-size-fits-all approach, and the minority is just out of luck. That's not rational.

Those who would call for "rational reform based on moderation and compromise" are always government supremacists who would be upset that anyone would resist their enlightened benevolent governing. After all, "government is necessary". Statists are both irrational and superstitious. They are also elitists.

What they seek to rationally reform is those loopholes of liberty they don't like... by closing them. They propose to compromise them away because they are uncomfortable allowing them to exist.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡2020 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Thursday, March 05, 2020

Thoughts on current politics



See, this is what happens when politics intrudes on my thoughts. This is why it's best if it doesn't.

To the extent I think about politics and elections, which isn't a lot, I would always prefer that the most amusing candidate "win".

That-- besides my decades of despising Hillary RODHAM* (*Clinton) in a Very Special Way-- is why I hoped Trump would be the nominee and beat her last time around, even though I no longer v*te (not since Michael Badnarik) and don't support Trump or any other president. I don't need a president, nor do I need to be governed, nor do I want you governed on my behalf. Because I'm not a psychopath.

I've been thinking Bernie Sanders would be the most entertaining candidate to have running against Trump now. Too bad the game is rigged against him.

The others bore me so much-- other than the festering boil that just dropped out: old Mikey Bloomiepants, whom I've had decades of experience despising for his haughty anti-liberty bigotry. He might be a mini-hooman, but he's a giant oozing boil on humanity's tailbone.

Sure, all of the candidates are anti-liberty bigots. All the DemoCRAPublicans-- including Trump-- are. But this time around all my Very Special Feelings were reserved for Bloomberg-- I'm glad he's out. I'll refrain from unwisely saying in public what I want his near future to look like.

My only thoughts about the DeepState's Choice, Biden, involve remembering he was caught up in some plagiarism scandal long ago. I doubt he has evolved into a better person since then since he's still seeking political power. And he does like to touch people inappropriately. But who doesn't? Otherwise, he's too boring to bother thinking about. His accelerating mental decline might change that and make him more interesting, though.

Yes, I think Bernie would destroy the economy. But any of them could since economies are not suited for centralized control, and that's all they know how to do since they all rely on politics. Knowing this harsh truth is part of why I "prep". If you try to control something that can't be controlled you're courting disaster-- or if you're Joe Biden, you're just breathing heavily in its hair.

Yeah, I admit to a certain amount of "watch the world burn" motivating my inner thoughts and emotions concerning politics. It's ugly, but it's in there. If the world is going to burn anyway, I might as well enjoy the show.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Tuesday, March 03, 2020

Cough. Sniffle. PANIC!



These days a guy can't get a sniffle without everyone wondering if you have a corona-cold.

Everyone in the house suddenly came down with mild cold symptoms Monday. Well, mild so far.

My daughter went to the doctor and was given some meds. Of course, now she's sitting around the house happily yapping about having the coronavirus (which means she apparently doesn't feel very bad). No, the doctor didn't even suggest that's what she has, but you know how kids are.

I'm self-medicating with the supplements I normally use at the first sign of a cold (or when I suspect I've been exposed to one). If this works as well as it usually does I'll probably avoid getting very sick and any illness will be abbreviated.

I'm also going to be nice and not go around exposing people to whatever I may have. Although, yes, I know that by the time any symptoms appear you've already been infectious. I can't help that. But I can avoid frightening those already primed to panic at the sight of someone with the sniffles. I don't need to be confronted with torches and pitchforks.

I think limiting the exposure of others is always the responsible thing to do. I'm glad I have that freedom (even though it comes with economic sacrifice).

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Monday, March 02, 2020

Helping the "homeless"

All the cries to "solve the homelessness problem", especially by using political government, fall flat with me. It's not that I'm heartless. I've even been homeless myself, so I should have empathy. But I also have experience with homeless people.

Years ago I met a homeless guy named Paul. He was nice enough, but it was clear he wasn't "all there". He had left his home in Kentucky and traveled in his car (I'm assuming it was his) to western Colorado. There he spent the nights in his car, which he kept parked in the back-country, and walked into town almost every day.

He told me tales of his affair with a ghost back in Kentucky, and told me he left home because his parents wanted to have him committed to a mental hospital. I could see their point.

I did what I could to help him. I taught him some survival skills I thought might help. I gave him a hatchet that had been mine since I was a teen and also gave him some candles and other things I thought he might benefit from. I gave him food a few times.

Paul liked to hang out in my store and visit. I did sometimes get tired of him-- my enthusiasm for socializing can get used up pretty quick in any situation that's not karaoke. He often smelled bad-- but he did bathe at campgrounds from time to time.

The worst thing (for me) he did was hit on women who would come into my store-- right in front of their husbands. I told him he had to stop this or he couldn't come in my store anymore; he was driving away what few customers I had. This made him angry and he said he would come smash my front window that night. I had a few overnight armed vigils in the back of the store but he never acted on this threat. And soon enough, he acted like he forgot this had ever happened.

That summer, the sidewalk in front of the store was being torn out and replaced and I found an old horseshoe in the dirt under the concrete. I put it on display in my store. He became very interested in this horseshoe and wanted to take it to his car and let it "speak" to him overnight. So I let him.

He came back the next day with stories of what the horseshoe had "shown" him. He even wrote an account of some of this-- minus the darkest parts about dismembered bodies in steel barrels-- on a notepad I had given him. (See the scans at the bottom of the page.) He just told me those parts but didn't include them in the written account for some reason.

But he became convinced the horseshoe was cursed and that was the reason my store wasn't flourishing. Its presence was the problem.

He said I had to get rid of the cursed horseshoe before something horrible happened to me. To humor him I tossed it.

Oddly, things didn't improve.

He told me one day that Fall that he was moving to Utah. He packed up his car, I contributed some gas money, and he took off. I thought that was the end of that.

A week or two later I saw a very scruffy-looking guy crossing the street and thought it looked like Paul. It was him and he was soon in my shop again. He was dirtier and smellier than ever before. It turned out he had driven almost to the Utah line, but then turned up the interstate and headed toward Denver, and then his car had stopped running. I don't know if he was out of gas or if it broke down. He didn't stick around to see, but started walking back "home". That was over 130 miles, and maybe a lot more, depending on how far he'd gone on the interstate. He abandoned all his possessions there in his car on the side of the interstate, never to be seen again.

He said he'd gotten one ride-- an insistent cop had picked him up on the west side of one of the very few towns along his route and dropped him off on the east side of town so he could continue his journey. He refused all other rides along the way, and slept in the grass beside the highway every night.

His feet were sore, and now he had no place to sleep at night. A preacher friend of mine happened to come in the store about this time and heard the story. He offered to have the town's ministerial alliance pay for a hotel room. Paul refused, saying he wouldn't accept anything from them because he didn't know them. The preacher said, "but that's what we do-- help people who need help". Paul was having none of it and my preacher friend finally went on his way.

So, instead of a nice hotel room, Paul started spending the nights in a porta-potty at the construction site of the new school. It was now late November, with the temperatures falling well below freezing, and often dipping below zero. I gave him a few candles for warmth.

I began to see less of him, usually only every few days or so.

Around this time there were reports of homes in that area being entered during the night-- their toilets being used and food being eaten. Only one homeowner caught a glimpse of someone fitting Paul's description walking away from their house. It was in the paper and I suspected it was him, but I never found out for sure.

Not long after that, Paul decided to go see if there were more opportunities for "the homeless" in Denver, and he somehow got a bus ticket and left, and I never saw him again.

One result of this experience is that it kind of made me skeptical about the homeless. Yes, he was only one example (although there have been others I've met who were very similar). But homelessness isn't about a lack of homes. Paul had a home and he left. He had opportunities to be housed, he rejected the offers. He was a beggar and didn't want anything to jeopardize his chosen lifestyle.

At least I don't believe he was an addict; his mental issues were burdensome enough.

I know most (or all) of the beggars here locally are the same way. Their signs say they are stranded and need gas money, but they live in houses. Here. And have for years. Stranded? Where do they imagine they are going?

I was homeless for a time several years ago. But I didn't sleep on the streets (I slept in the woods) and I didn't get handouts or steal from anyone. I kept my job and worked to get myself out of that situation. But I also wasn't addicted or mentally ill (some might disagree on that last point, though).

It doesn't bother me if people choose to give to the homeless, but I know it's not going to fix anything. Nor would building houses for them. They generally have issues beyond what those things can solve. Paul was a case in point.

Below, for posterity, are scans of Paul's "horseshoe visions".



-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Sunday, March 01, 2020

Being forced to help not helping

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 29, 2020)




I want you to hunger for liberty; to crave the freedom to do everything you have a right to do, even if you choose to not do it all. I want you to want liberty as much as I want it.

I also want you to respect the liberty of others. To govern yourself and no one else-- this is your primary obligation to others.

I realize some people are scared by the thought of liberty or freedom. I've even seen people complain that libertarians want to "force people to be free". This has become something of an in-joke among libertarians; we want to take over and leave you alone.

No one can be forced to be free, and I wouldn't if I could. This would defeat the purpose without accomplishing anything.

If liberty isn't freely chosen, it's worthless. It won't be valued and it would be easy to give it up the first time some creepy politician says you need to give up some liberty so you can be safer. 

You've got to want liberty bad enough to fight for it against those who want to violate it. You've got to want it bad enough to do whatever it takes once you discover that protesting and voting don't work.

If you don't value liberty this much, you won't care enough to make an effort to protect it. You'll never make liberty a priority.

I can't change your priorities.

What I can do is remind you of everything you're cheating yourself out of, hint at all you are missing, and tease you with the possibilities you may not have considered. I can also share with you my confidence that you don't need to be governed or controlled. You can handle life.

To say I'm willing to leave you alone means I wouldn't try to run your life. It doesn't mean to leave you without social support. There's no reason you can't ask for help; nothing to prevent you from reaching out to help others without being forced to "help" them by legislative threat. Being forced to help isn't helping. Complying with a threat doesn't make you a compassionate or moral person. It shows you can be manipulated and easily scared into doing what someone else thinks you should instead of acting on your own values.

I'm not willing to do this to you. I want liberty and I respect you too much to violate your liberty by forcing it on you.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Stalking with intent to steal, or worse



Say you were a UPS or FedEx driver and were being followed by a car. You stop and ask the occupant of the car what he's doing, and he says he's waiting for you to drop a package on a porch so he could take it. Would you have to wait until he took the package to act against this self-proclaimed future thief?

Would it be any different if you see a cop on the road while you are puttering around in your car?

The threat and intention are the same, even if you ignore the fact that the cop wouldn't even exist (as a "job") without theft already having occurred.

Not only that, but to wear the gang colors of the Blue Line Gang is to advertise a willingness to murder during the enforcement of legislation.

To see a police officer of any faction is to see a credible, lethal threat to the life, liberty, and property of everyone in the vicinity. How many are intentionally blind to this threat? How many actively deny there is a threat and support this vile gang?

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Saturday, February 29, 2020

Getting mad at the wrong people



"People who don't pay the taxes they owe are stealing from us all."

Male Bos taurus fecal matter.

Like it or not, "taxation" is theft. You can't define your way out of this one.

You don't "pay" a thief; you submit to the theft if you are forced to by a power imbalance.

No one can "owe" a thief the money he demands.

And keeping your own property away from thieves isn't stealing from those who imagine they might get a cut.

It's not honorable to submit to theft; it's not dishonorable to refuse to comply. It's not dishonorable to hand over the money to prevent being harmed in an even worse way.

It's not reasonable to get angry at those who don't submit. "Taxation" is a lie.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Friday, February 28, 2020

Another Branch Davidian siege anniversary

Today is-- as I was reminded by Ammo.com-- the anniversary of the beginning of the attack (and eventual murder) of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.

Ammo.com published an account of the crime that you might be interested in.

I'm interested because of the odd confluence of events that made it all seem a little more personal than it should have been.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Your right to not be a slave



You have the right to not be enslaved-- in other words, you have the right to exercise control over your own body and the fruits of your labors.
No one has the right to enslave you.
No one has the right to demand nor to ask you to be enslaved for their benefit or to receive certain privileges.
Any request that you enslave yourself-- for any duration-- is illegitimate.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Thursday, February 27, 2020

Pragmatism revisited

Screenshot from this Youtube video


Pragmatism is the philosophy which says that it doesn't really matter if something is true, just that it's useful.

Well, I think it's nice if something is useful, but it also needs to be true. Truth which you haven't yet found a use for is still true. It just depends on your priorities, I guess. And it depends if your worldview revolves around a lie, making truth somewhat inconvenient for your side.

But, the bottom line is that which is pragmatic doesn't necessarily have to be a lie, even though being a lie doesn't disqualify it.

As writer Jim Davies pointed out in a recent comment, freedom can be pragmatic. And he once interviewed some fellows who made demonstrating this fact their work. That's the kind of pragmatism I can get behind.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

In pain? Toss your principles

Credit here

Drew Cary is a celebrity who is often considered a libertarian. Recently his ex-fiancee was murdered by an ex-boyfriend. This is a tragedy and I am sorry for Drew and all those who were hurt by this act of evil.

But, now this celebrity libertarian has tossed his principles out the window and is campaigning for more State by calling for updated domestic violence legislation. Updated legislation always involves more governizing, never less.

I can sympathize with his pain. But emotional pain is no excuse to cause more pain by advocating for more political government. More, or stronger, "laws" are never the solution.

I hope when the pain isn't so fresh he backs away from this embrace of statism.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡ 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Monday, February 24, 2020

Corporation- the definition



Corporations-- a Frankenstein's monster created by stitching together political government and businesses.

Corporations are the key feature of the economic system corporatism; also known as fascism, a "public/private partnership", or "crony capitalism".

Corporatism is not capitalism* and the two systems can't coexist. Where political government exists, capitalism can't.

Corporatism uses government and its legislation to manipulate and destroy the market; to prop up government-sanctioned monopolies (the only kind that can exist for long) and to prevent competition. Government uses corporations to finance rights violations and to manipulate the people, but with plausible deniability. Corporations are government and government is corporations.

Calls to raise "taxes" on corporations are a sign of economic ignorance.
-

*Capitalism is the market-- business regulated by "the invisible hand"; the aggregate actions of every individual choice. It has everything to do with society and nothing to do with the State.

-



Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Good to occasionally consider 'what if'

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 22, 2020)




Everyone would be smart to consider "what if?", especially where their beliefs and assumptions are concerned. While it's not healthy to dwell on it until the thought paralyzes you, "what if I'm wrong?" is essential if you like being correct.

What if I'm wrong about everything I believe? There are those who believe I am. Are they right?

What if it really were possible to change an unethical act into an ethical one just by writing some words saying it's now OK? What if you call those words "legislation" or "the law"?

What if a group has the right to gang up and violate the life, liberty, property of others as long as they follow rules they've made up? Can such a right be created with rules? What if they call the act of ganging up "voting" or "governing"?

What if it's actually OK to use violence against people who aren't harming others? What if you call this violence "enforcing the law" and say you don't make the laws, you just enforce them; shifting the blame to others? Is it OK as long as you pretend the people themselves are to blame for the legislation being violently imposed against them?

What if it's OK to take other people's property without their explicit consent? You could call it "taxation", "fines", asset forfeiture, or eminent domain. What if you don't completely steal the property, but only steal its value to the owner through acts you call "code enforcement" or "zoning"?

What if you really do have the right to control what others ingest? What if you call it a war on drugs instead of admitting it's a war on sick people?

What if it's ethical to prohibit or ration self-defense and the tools which are most effective for that purpose? What if you claim it's about safety or crime?

What if working for government does give a person extra rights others can't have? Would it change anything if they call it "authority" instead of a right?

What if it's OK to be dishonest about what you do as long as you mean well? Never mind the real-world consequences, your intentions are what matter. Right?

Would this be a society you'd want to live in? It wouldn't be for me. In fact, I wouldn't call it a society except in the loosest sense.

I might be wrong. Any of us might be. When you're willing to consider the possibility you could be wrong, real thinking begins.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Dumb activist vs the Mountainmen



One year during the mountainman rendezvous I was attending somewhere in the Rockies, a guy wearing cut-offs and mud (the mud was apparently intentional) suddenly rode his dirt bike into camp and into the rather active shooting range, between the shooters and their targets.

Shooting paused. Mountainmen grumbled, laughed, and watched to see what the idiot would do next.

As he rode back and forth he was screaming and yelling that we were killing Mother Earth with our lead and smoke (but somehow she was immune to his dirtbike?).

It was suggested he leave before an unfortunate incident occurred, but he didn't seem to have much of a sense of self-preservation-- which might have had something to do with either some recently partaken mind-altering substances or an unrelated mental condition.

Coincidentally, at the same time in another part of the camp, some forest circus rangers were "visiting" to make sure everyone was all "legal" and whatnot. ("Of course that's a turkey feather. Can't you tell the difference?") They heard the change of commotion and moseyed over to get involved. They grabbed mud man and his bike and as they escorted him from the area, they told him to leave our camp and stay away; that he should be grateful they were rescuing him, and if he was dumb enough to come back they wouldn't rescue him again.

He didn't come back.

That was the only invasion of our camp while I was in attendance, although another year some mountainmen snuck into someone else's camp to give them a lesson in neighborliness. (Which actually worked out well.)

There was always talk of PETA or some similar group planning to raid our camp to complain about our clothing or something, and to try to splash us with red paint. The talk around camp was almost hopeful. You don't raid an armed camp and come out ahead. At best you'll come out even... if you are really lucky. And sometimes there will be no one on hand to rescue you from your poor life-choices.

Good times.
-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Leaky excuses for government



There are a couple of standard historical justifications for political government. One is that government is needed to right wrongs. The other is that political government is needed for defense-- either against individual archators or opposition political governments.

Sounds reasonable... if you don't look too closely.

Is it even possible to use political government to right a wrong or in defense?

Not really.

Why can't government right wrongs? Distilled down, a wrong is a violation of property ("theft") and/or aggression against a person (violations of life and liberty)-- put together, they are what I refer to as archation. Political government-- or even just politics-- can't exist separate from theft and aggression. Theft and aggression are generally agreed to be wrong. You can't right a wrong by committing wrong.

The same goes for defense. Political government can't exist apart from theft and aggression, and what else is there to be defended from? Even if the one you use government against is guilty of using theft and aggression, your "tool"-- government-- wouldn't exist without theft and aggression committed against innocent others; "collateral damage". By using government you become the aggressor. Just because the one you use government against is also using theft and aggression doesn't make you right. It just makes you a participant in a gang fight; actively harming the life, liberty, and property of bystanders.

Statists who are desperate to justify political government use various excuses. But those excuses don't hold water and you'd have to squint pretty hard to not see the leaks.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Friday, February 21, 2020

Die, NASA. Die.



Long ago, I was a fan of NASA. Even though it was government. I even told people that I wouldn't mind so much being "taxed" if I could make sure only NASA got all the money I "contributed".

That time is long past.

Now I despise NASA and want to see it die-- not to be replaced with anything.

NASA just serves as the border patrol for the "up" border. Making sure the tax cattle can't escape. It is in the business of preventing human space exploration or even human space travel, except on a very small scale. With the "proper permits".

NASA-- along with the equally evil FAA-- imagines it has the "authority" to allow or deny access to space; to deny people the freedom to leave earth and government behind.

Humans will never leave Earth behind if NASA has any say in the matter.

This alone is enough reason to kill it off permanently.
-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Embracing the utility of evil is pragmatic



Last week I listened to an interview. The author being interviewed was a raging pragmatist. Very utilitarian.

I found the interview disgusting for all the same reasons I always find pragmatism and utilitarianism without a foundation in ethical behavior disgusting. And it is rare to find a utilitarian pragmatist who thinks ethics are pragmatic or utilitarian... unless they happen to agree with what he wants to do to you this time.

There's literally nothing that can't be excused or justified that way. It was hard to listen to and made me feel physically sick at several points.

I understand why people preach pragmatism. There's no point in living in a fantasy world of things and ideas that can't work.

I understand utilitarianism, too. You might as well use methods that are useful.

But just because something can work or is useful doesn't mean it's right.

Genocide obviously works in the real world, and it can be perfectly useful, depending on what you want to accomplish-- as long as you don't worry yourself over whether it is wrong.

Legislation can also work in the real world and it can be useful. Never mind that using it is almost always going to be unethical. As long as your goals are more important that who you violate while getting there, you can be very pragmatic and utilitarian.

I don't really hate pragmatism or utility, although it might seem so from what I've been saying. What I hate is the way those are used to advocate and justify committing evil against others.

You don't have to be pragmatic or utilitarian to be an advocate of evil. Bernie Sanders is certainly not pragmatic or utilitarian-- although it could be argued that his theft advocacy could be utilitarian, even though it wouldn't be utilitarian enough to reach his stated goals. However, I have not yet run across a vocal advocate of pragmatism or utilitarianism who isn't also trying to excuse some sort of great evil. It must be a difficult line to walk; too difficult to navigate in the real world.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Don't "tax the rich"



There's an important fact that is missed by the "tax the rich" folk-- besides the fact that "taxation" is theft whether they like to admit it or not. (And they don't; they HATE it. It makes them crazy.)

If you "tax" wealthy people you are stealing from me.
Even if you don't "tax" me, directly.
Even if you give me some "benefits" from it. I don't want a cut of the loot.

You are stealing money he might use to start a business that would benefit me. Or money she might use to buy something from me. Or money he might donate to me because he has so much excess and can't figure out how to use it.
But even if none of that happens, you are funding antisocial political government to my detriment.

It's just as bad as calling for Big Business to "pay more taxes". It's a lie. I can't afford for you to "tax" anyone.

"Taxation" steals from me even if it never touches me otherwise. It steals money, opportunities, and liberty.

I will never support a plan to "tax" anyone, for any reason, ever.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.
♡CopyHeart 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.

Monday, February 17, 2020

"Is X a human right?"



Let’s say X is a human right. What would this mean?

It means no one has the right to prevent you from creating, buying, being given, having, selling, gifting, or using X, as long as you do so without violating the life, liberty, or property of another.

It doesn’t mean you have a right to steal the X someone else creates or owns. It doesn't mean you are allowed to enslave someone so you can have X at their expense.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

Don't scare kids with political fears

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 15, 2020)




I remember the panic I felt about tornado warnings as a child. It didn't matter whether my family was in danger; I wasn't informed enough to know whether we were. I didn't understand that worry isn't helpful, and I wasn't able to change things. There was nothing meaningful I could do.

In the past couple of weeks, I've heard of local children scared that World War Three had begun. They've overheard adults talking about it and were worried. I did my best to explain things and calm the fears of one kid; hopeful that she'd calm her friends.

It would be great if adults would stop acting like scared children; overreacting about politics, science, and other things they don't understand as well as they imagine they do.

This pattern repeats both locally and on a global scale.

In recent months an angry Swedish teen gained attention because she believes the planet is being destroyed by carbon dioxide. She's scared... and she blames you.

All because she has been shown one side of a debate by people who don't want dissent. Their political agenda--  their power and position-- depends on the narrative going a particular way. She is being used as their political pawn.

I'm not even claiming she's necessarily wrong. Regardless of what you've been told, no one knows. Climate predictions about the long-term are not much better than a guess. But the way she has been frightened and used is wrong without question. Do you really want to ruin a young person's life based on speculation?

Political events may even be worse. To pretend you know for certain that one politician having another politician killed is going to cause a world war-- and scaring children with this kind of talk-- is irresponsible. Or worse.

If you want to worry, go ahead. But to scare kids with this kind of thing isn't right.

I'm not saying to keep them ignorant. You can discuss the facts without sharing scary doomsday conclusions.

It's different to educate a kid on the dangers of getting into a stranger's car. They have control over this. None of us can save or destroy the planet, and politicians are going to do what politicians do. In fact, you can't be certain which path results in destruction and which one comes out better in the long run. You can guess. You can apply your beliefs. But you can't know.

To scare children over things no one can know for certain is child abuse.


-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com